BACTERIAL CONCRETE USING

PORTLAND SLAG CEMENT

A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

by

SHREYA CHANDRA (1101239)

SHREE CHAND (1101238)
SHIV SHYAM PAL (1101237)
SHASHI RAJ (1101235)
SHASHANK SOURABH (1101234)
SHAIKH MOHAMMAD RAFI (1101233)

Supervisor
DR. SANJAYA K.PATRO

School of Civil Engineering

KIIT UNIVERSITY
751024

April 2015
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with tremendous delight that we express our true feeling of appreciation

and humble thankfulness to Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Patro for his priceless direction, entire
hearted co-operation, productive feedback and persistent consolation in the planning
of this theory. Without his backing and direction, the present work would have
remained a fantasy.

We want to thank concerned staff of School of Civil Engineering KIIT

UNIVERSITY, for giving fundamental offices. We want to say thanks to Prof. N.R.
Panda for helping us in society and blending of microorganisms.

We take this chance to thank all my lab accomplices, companions & family for
their significant backing and support all through the readiness of this work. We
likewise thank each one of the individuals who have specifically or in a roundabout
way helped in finish of this work..

April 2015, Shreya Chandra

KIIT, BHUBANESWAR Shree Chand
Shiv Shyam Pal
Shashi Raj
Shashank Sourabh
Shaikh Mohammad Rafi

iii
 DECLARATION OF SCHOLAR

We confirm that the work which is being displayed in the report entitle "Bacterial
concrete using Portland Slag cement" in halfway satisfaction of the necessities for
the recompense of the level of Bachelor of Technology in School of Civil Engineering
under KIIT University, Bhubaneswar is a genuine record we could call our own work
did amid the period from 2014 to 2015 under the supervision of Dr. Sanjaya Kumar
Patro.

The matter epitomized in this proposal has not been presented by us for the
recompense of whatever other level of this or some other University/Institute

signature

Shreya Chandra Shree Chand

Shashi Raj Shiv Shaym Pal

Shaikh Mohammad Rafi Shashank Sourabh

This is to certify that above statement made by the students is correct to the best of
our knowledge.

Dr.Sanjaya Kumar Patro

(Supervisor)
School of Civil Engineering

iv
 ABSTRACT

Common techniques, for example, weathering, deficiencies, land subsidence, seismic

tremors, and human exercises make breaks and fractures in concrete structures which
can decrease the administration life of the structures. A novel procedure to restore or
remediate such structures is bio mineralization of calcium carbonate utilizing
microorganisms. In this study, Micro naturally impelled calcium carbonate
precipitation (MICCP) strategy is considered. This method can be utilized to enhance
the compressive strength and firmness of concrete. The calcite layer enhances the
impermeability of the specimen, accordingly expanding its imperviousness to soluble,
sulfate and stop defrost assault. The present examination considers the impact of
microbes, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, on the properties of Portland Slag cement
concrete. Tests are done to get the properties of controlled concrete, and concrete with
microscopic organisms with the concentration 109cells/ml of microbes and after that
looking at them two. The properties are measured by deciding water ingestion worth,
tensile stress and compressive strength of bacterial concrete, and afterward contrasted
and controlled concrete. It is seen from tests that impact of microbes is huge for
compressive strength of concrete with microscopic organisms over controlled
concrete at a predefined convergance of microorganisms considered in this study. The
impact of microscopic organisms on tensile stress on concrete is likewise striking. At
28, 56 and 91 days, the compressive strength of bacterial concrete is more than
35.55%, 26.33% and 19.94% separately, over controlled concrete. Additionally, the
tensile stress of bacterial concrete at 28, 56 and 91 days is more than 32.97% , 37.93%
and 21.52% separately, over controlled concrete. Flexural strength of bacterial
concrete at 28, 56 and 91 days is more than 10.72%, 13.11% and 12.53% separately.
The water absorption estimation of bacterial concrete was discovered to be 20.95% ,
25.97% and 12.56% not as much as that of controlled concrete at 28 , 56 and 91 days
separately. Considering the entire examination, bacterial concrete has demonstrated
an amazing increment in the compressive strength and tensile stress over controlled
concrete.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET ................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... vi
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Organisation of Report .............................................................................. 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 4
3. MATERIAL ............................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Cement ....................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Aggregates ................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Corse Aggregate .......................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Fine Aggregate ............................................................................ 13
3.3 Bacteria ...................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Water ......................................................................................................... 13
4. EXPERIMENTAL POGRAM ................................................................................. 16
4.1 Preparation of concrete specimens .............................................................. 16
4.2 Mixing Procedure ....................................................................................... 16
4.3Testing of fresh concrete ............................................................................. 17
4.4 Casting-Compaction andCuring ................................................................. 17
4.4.1 Casting and Curing of Cube Specimens ...................................... 17
4.4.2 Casting and Curing of Cylinder Specimens ................................. 17
4.3.2 Casting and Curing of Prism specimens ....................................... 18
4.5 Testing of Hardened Concrete .................................................................... 18
4.5.1 Compressive strength of Concrete ................................................ 18
4.5.2 Split Tensile strength of Concrete ................................................ 19
4.5.3 Flexural strength of Concrete ....................................................... 20
4.5.4 Water Absorption of Concrete......................................................
5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 22
5.1 Compresive Strength .................................................................................. 22
5.2 Split Tensile Strength ................................................................................. 23
5.3 Flexural strength ........................................................................................ 24
5.4 Water Absorption
6. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES 40

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 3

Table 3.1: Physical properties of coarse aggregate ....................................................... 14

Table 3.2: Physical properties of fine aggregate ........................................................... 14

Chapter 5

Table 5.1: Compressive strength test result .................................................................. 25

Table 5.2: Splitting tensile strength test result .............................................................. 25
Table 5.3: Flexural strength test result ......................................................................... 25
Table 5.4: Water absorption test result ......................................................................... 25

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Calcium carbonate precipitation in concrete

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1: Microscopic view of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. (Courtesy Google Inc.)

Figure 2.2: Figure 2.2: Bacteria in Nutrient agar medium. (Courtesy Google Inc.)

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1: Solution of bacteria in a flask

Figure 4.2: Mixing of bacteria in water
Figure 4.3: Mixing of concrete in pan mixer
Figure 4.4: Slump test
Figure 4.5: Casted cube specimens
Figure 4.6: Casted prism specimens
Figure 4.7: Casted cylindrical specimens
Figure 4.8: Specimens in curing chamber
Figure 4.9: Compressive stress testing machine of cubes
Figure 4.10: Splitting-tensile stress testing of cylinders
Figure 4.11: Flexural strength testing of prisms

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Concrete is a standout amongst the most imperative materials utilized as a part of
structural building. Through the years it has been watched concrete is showing rather
lower compressive quality, higher water absorption, increment in penetrability and
splits. With a specific end goal to conquer these faults and to enhance its properties,
admixtures were presented. Fly ash, Slag, Plasticizers and so forth, were utilized.
They were either lavish or destructive for nature. A dependable self mending
technique for cement would prompt another method for outlining solid cement which
is useful for national and worldwide economy. Microbiologically Induced Calcium
Carbonate Precipitation (MICCP) is a system in light of Bio-mineralization. It is a
procedure in which living organic entity structures inorganic solids. It is an
exceptionally alluring procedure as the encourage which is shaped is contamination
free and characteristic. This idea in concrete prompts potential innovation of new
material called 'Bacterial Concrete'. Examination prompting MICCP and its capacity
to recuperate breaks has prompted numerous applications like split remediation of
concrete, sand solidification and other such applications. Incorporation of microscopic
organisms in concrete prompts the precipitation of carbonate on the surface of
example brought about an abatement of narrow water uptake and its porousness.
Bacterial concrete is an item that will organically deliver limestone to recuperate
splits and fill voids in cement thus giving it more quality and solidness. Microscopic
organisms are added to the cement when it is blended. The spores of microorganisms
sprout on contact with water and concrete. As microorganisms sustains, oxygen get
devoured and dissolvable calcium segment is changed over into insoluble calcium
carbonate. The limestone sets on the broke surface and voids, consequently fixing it
up. Improved representation of substance response of microbes in cement.
Ca+2 + cell → cell-Ca+2
Cell-Ca+2 +CO3-2 →cell-CaCO3

9
 Figure 1.1 Calcium carbonate precipitation in concrete

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the present study are as below.

1. To carry out literature review for detail understanding of bacterial concrete.

2. To culture the bacteria at favorable conditions in KIIT to get desired

concentration.

3. To observe the change in properties of concrete with bacteria.

4. To compare the properties of Controlled and Bacterial concrete.

1.3 ORGANISATION OF THE REPORT

The present work has been organised into six chapters. Following is a brief
outline of the report.

In the second chapter, general overview of literatures from various journals

and publication are overviewed and discussed.

The third chapter presents the general overviews of various materials used in
this study are discussed.

The fourth chapter presents the experimental program like mixing procedure,
specification, detail of various tests and their procedure.

The fifth chapter deals with the various results and discussions of the study.

10
 As a result of the study carried out, overall conclusions, contribution are
presented in the last chapter to bring out the outcome of the present work.

11
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Braissant et al (2002) reported the utilization of organic acids as another microbial
process that leads to an increase of both pH and concentration of dissolved inorganic
carbon. The process has been commonly used in microbial carbonate precipitation
experiments.

Muynck et al (2008) reported the effects of bacterial CaCO3precipitation on

parameters affecting the durability of concrete and mortar. Pure and mixed cultures of
ureolytic bacteria were compared for their effectiveness in relation to conventional
surface treatments. Bacterial deposition of a layer of calcite on the surface of the
specimens resulted in a decrease of capillary water uptake and permeability towards
gas..

Figure 2.1: Microscopic view of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa.

(Courtesy Google Inc.)

Figure 2.2: Bacteria in Nutrient agar medium.

(Courtesy Google Inc.)

12
Rodriguez et al (2003) reported bacteria from various natural habitats to have the
capacity to precipitate calcium carbonate both in natural and in research facility
conditions. It helped in reclamation of cement mortar cubes, sand consolidation and
limestone landmark repair, decrease of water and chloride ion penetrability in
concrete, filling of pores and splits in concrete, improved quality of blocks by means
of urea hydrolysis pathway has been researched.
.
Rodriguez- Navarro et al (2003); Nicholson & Fajardo (2006) reported that fast
precipitation of bacterial carbonates could result in a lower efficiency of the calcite
deposition. Along with this, the presence of well-developed rhombohedra calcite
crystals result in a more pronounced consolidating effect compared to the presence of
tiny acicular vaterite crystals.

Tiano et al. (2006). Dick et al. (2006) observed 50% reduction in water absorption by
treating limestone cubes with bacteria.

13
 3. MATERIALS

3.1 CEMENT

Cement has distinctive properties and attributes which rely on their compound
arrangements. By changing in fineness of pounding, oxide structures bond have show
diverse properties and distinctive sort of cement. The utilization of added substances,
changing synthetic structure, and utilization of distinctive crude materials have come
about the accessibility of numerous sorts of cements.

Cement utilized as a part of the test work is PORTLAND SLAG CEMENT adjusting
to IS: 455(1989).

3.2 AGGREGATES

Aggregates are the critical constituents in cement. They offer body to the concrete,
lessen shrinkage and impact economy. The way that the aggregates possess 70-80%
of volume of concrete, it has some effect on different qualities and properties of
concrete. Prior, aggregates were considered as synthetically inactive material yet now
it has been perceived that a percentage of the aggregates are compound dynamic
furthermore certain aggregates show concoction bond at the interface of aggregates
and paste.

3.2.1 Corse aggregate

Crushed granite of 20mm passing 12.5mm holding and 10mm passing

4.75mm holding sizes were utilized as coarse aggregate. The strainer investigation of
aggregates affirms to the particulars of IS: 383-1970. The Physical Properties are
given in the Table 3.1.

14
3.2.2 Fine Aggregate

Fine aggregate which satisfied the required properties for experimental work
and conforms to zone as per the specification of IS: 383-1970. . The Physical
Properties are given in the Table 3.2.

3.3 BACTERIA

Pseudomonas Aeruginosa was utilized as a part of this study. The way of life was
routinely kept up on Nutrient agar (pH 8.0) medium for 48 hours. Supplement stock
urea medium (8gm nutrient broth, 2% urea and 25ml CaCl2) was utilized to develop
the isolate. Filter sterilized urea and CaCl2 was included into nutrient broth medium.
Microorganism society was developed at 38°C under consistent shaking (130 rpm) in
a incubator shaker to get the desired optical density.

3.4 WATER

Clean potable water as obtained from laboratory of Civil Engineering

Department of KIIT University was used for mixing and curing of concrete. Water-
cement ratio of 0.45 was used in the experiment.

Table 3.1 Physical Properties of coarse aggregate

SL.NO PARTICULARS TEST RESULTS

1 Specific Gravity 2.7
2 Fineness Modulus 6.2
3 Water Absorption 0.4(%)

Table 3.2 Physical Properties of fine aggregate

SL.NO PARTICULARS TEST RESULTS

1 Specific gravity 2.65
2 Fineness Modulus 2.47
3 Water Absorption 0.85(%)
4 Free Surface Moisture 0.90(%)

15
 4. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 PREPARATION OF CONCRETE SPECIMENS

. Difference mix bacterial concrete and controlled cement were gotten to lead
pressure test on standard BIS specimen of size 150×150×150 mm3, split tensile test on
standard BIS example of size 150 mm(diameter) & 300 mm (length), flexural test on
standard BIS example of size 100×100×500 mm3. The curing period for the BIS
example are 28, 56 and 91 days individually

4.2 MIXING PROCEDURE

Uniform mix of concrete ought to be guaranteed to get right test aftereffects of the
specimen. For controlled concrete, at first the coarse aggregate is weighed for obliged
amount every mix proportioning in tray 1; the Sand is measured and filled another
mix tray 2, which is totally dry. Cement is measured and dry mixing was finished
with the sand in the pan mixer. Later coarse aggregate were additionally included and
dry mixing was carried out. After that obliged water was included and the mixing
procedure was performed appropriately in the mixer until uniform shading of concrete
is seen. Quickly the concrete is measured for slump and placed in moulds as per
procedure.

For Bacterial Concrete, the above-clarified technique is taken after with the exception
of that before adding water to drymix of concrete, sand and coarse aggregate,
arrangement containing microscopic organisms was added to the water. It was mixed
appropriately to accomplish the wanted result.

4.3 TESTING OF FRESH CONCRETE

The slump test was conducted to measure the degree of workability for
controlled concrete and bacterial concrete. Slump value for controlled concrete came
out to be 60mm and for bacterial concrete it was observed to be 70mm.

16
 4.4 CASTING COMPACTION AND CURING

4.4.1 Casting and Curing of Cube Specimens

The cube moulds were covered with oil on their inward surface and were set
on rock stage. Concrete was poured into the moulds in three layers: every layer was
consistently packed by a packing bar with 25 quantities of blows. The top surface was
done utilizing a trowel. Moulds were continued vibrating table for legitimate
compaction and filling of voids.

Moulds were securely demoulded creating no harm to the specimens and

instantly cube specimenswere kept in curing chamber for the desired period.

4.4.2 Casting and Curing Of Cylinder Specimens

The steel cylindrical moulds were covered with oil on their inward surfaces and were
set on a stone stage. Concrete was poured into the moulds in four equivalent Layer
every layer as consistently packed by a packing bar with 35 quantities of blows. The
top surface was done utilizing a trowel. Moulds were continued vibrating table for
fitting compaction and filling of voids.

Moulds were securely demoulded bringing on no harm to the specimen and promptly
solid cylindrical specimens were kept in curing chamber for the desired period.

4.4.3 Casting and Curing Of Prism Specimens

The prism moulds were covered with oil on their internal surfaces and were set on a
stone stage. Concrete was poured into the moulds in two equivalent layers: every
layer was consistently packed by a packing pole. The top surface was done utilizing a
trowel. Moulds were continued vibrating table for fitting compaction and filling of
voids.

17
 Moulds were safely demoulded causing no damage to the specimen and
immediately Concrete prism specimen were kept in curing chamber for the desired
period.

Figure 4.1: Solution of bacteria in a flask Figure 4.2: Mixing of bacteria

in water

18
Figure 4.3: Mixing of concrete in pan mixer Figure 4.4: Slump test

Figure 4.5: Casted cube specimens Figure 4.6: Casted prism specimens

19
 Figure 4.7: Casted Figure 4.8: Specimens in curing
cylindrical specimens chamber

4.5 TESTING OF HARDENED CONCRETE

4.5.1Compressive Strength of concrete

The compressive strength of cement i.e. ultimate strength of concrete is characterized

as the load to which causes failure of the specimen isolated by the zone of the cross
segment in uniaxial pressure, under a given rate of stacking. To maintain a strategic
distance from expansive variety in the aftereffects of pressure test, an incredible
consideration is taken amid the throwing of the test specimens and stacking too. It is
however understood that in a real structure, the concrete anytime is in a complex
anxiety condition and not in uniaxial pressure. Nonetheless it is standard to direct the
test in uniaxial pressure just. Concrete under triaxial state can offer more resistance
and will fall flat when extensive huge misshapenings, the utilization of 150mm
concrete moulds has been made according to code of practices IS 456. The point of
interest of choice of Section IS-516 1959 (24) block, as the standard test example is
that two plane and parallel surfaces can simply be found between which the load can

20
be connected. Compression testing machine is utilized to test the cubical specimens.
The compression strength is ascertained utilizing the equation.

Compression Strength = N/mm2

4.5.1.1 Testing of cube specimen

At each desired curing periods, cube specimen were taken out of water and
kept for surface drying. The cubes were tested in 40T compressive testing machine to
get the compressive strength of concrete.

4.5.2 Split tensile Strength of concrete

The split tensile strength of concrete can be acquired by implication by

subjecting a concrete cylinder to the action of a compressive force along two opposite
ends of a base of compression testing machine.

Because of the compressive strength, the cylinder is subjected to an expansive size of

the compressive stress close to the loading region. The substantial segment relating to
a profundity of around 87% and length of the barrel is subjected to a uniform tensile
stress (St) is taken as a list of the tensile stress of concrete and is given by the recipe.

Tensile stress (N/mm2) = =

Where, P= load in N
d= diameter of cylinder = 150mm
l= length of specimen = 300mm

The load has to be applied to be cylinder through a packing plate of rubber or

plywood. The packing plate should be of a width of not more than 13mm and
thickness 3mm.

4.5.2.1 Testing of cylinder specimen

At every desired curing period, the cylindrical specimen were taken out of
water and kept for drying. The barrels were tried in a 40T limit compressive testing

21
machine to get the split tensile stress of concrete. Every specimen is deliberately set in
position, with the goal that loading is consistently dispersed over the length of the
specimen, in split tensile test; the specimen is supported with two timber pieces on top
and base of the specimen and uniformly distribute the load. Load is applied without
shock and increased continuously until no greater load can be sustained. Maximum
load applied on the specimen is recorded.

4.5.3 Flexural Strength of concrete

Modulus of rupture is defined as the normal tensile stress in concrete, when cracking
occurs in flexure test (IS 516-1599). This tensile stress is the flexural strength of
concrete and is calculated by the use of the formula, which assumes that the section is
homogeneous.

Fb = pl/bd2

Where, Fb= Modulus of rupture, N/mm2

b= Measured depth in mm
l= span length in mm
P= Max, Load in KN applied to the specimen.
The symmetrical two points loading makes an immaculate twisting zone with
consistent curving minute in the center third compass and along these lines the
modulus of burst acquired is not influenced by shear, as on account of single point
loading following up on the specimen. The concrete test specimen is a crystal of cross
area 100mm × 100mm and 500mm long. It is loaded on a span of 400mm. Modulus of
Rupture is useful as design criterion or concrete pavements and for evaluating the
cracking moment (Mcr), which is the moment that causes the first crack in a
prestressed concrete or partially prestressed concrete beam.

4.5.1.1 Testing of prism specimen

At each desired curing periods the Prism specimens were taken out of water and kept
for surface drying. The prisms were tested in Flexure testing machine by arranging
two point loading system m. each Specimen is carefully placed in position. Load is
applied without shock and rate of increase in loading is maintained. Maximum load

22
applied on the specimen is recorded at the point of failure of the specimen and
flexural strength is calculated.

4.5.4 Water Absorption of concrete

Three cubes of concrete of size 150mmX 150mm X 150mm were totally drenched in
clean water at room temperature for 24 hours. The pieces then expelled from the
water and permitted to deplete for one moment by setting them on a 10 mm or coarser
wire network. The unmistakable surface water is uprooted by a moist fabric and
surface dry squares were quickly weighed. In the wake of measuring all squares were
dried in a ventilated broiler at 100 to 150°C for 24 hours and after that dry weight of
pieces are weighed. The water retention rate is ascertained a
Absorption percentage =

Where, A= wet mass in kg , B= dry mass in kg.

Figure 4.9: Compressive Figure 4.10: Split-tensile stress

stress testing of cubes testing of cylinders

23
 Figure 4.11: Flexural
strength testing of prism

24
 5. RESULT AND DISSCUSION

This part manages the presentation of test outcome, and discourse on compressive
strength, tensile strength, flexural quality and water retention of controlled and
bacterial concrete. This part manages the change in properties of concrete on the
utilization of microbes and correlation of properties through bar charts.

5.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

The compressive strength is the primary criteria for the purpose of structural design.
The strength advancement in bacterial concrete are learned at 28, 56 and 91 days. The
increment of compressive strength of bacterial concrete over controlled concrete was
watched and given in Table 5.1 and indicated in Figure 5.1. The compressive strength
advancement at different curing ages for all sort of cubes are exhibited in even

structure. Aftereffect of all cube specimens showed increment in compressive quality

with expansion of curing age.

5.2 SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH

In RCC construction, the strength of concrete in compression is just looked into the
tensile stress of concrete is for the most part dismissed, as it is generally low in
correlation to the compressive strength. Be that as it may there are some present
structures; where the rigidity of concrete likewise discovers a decent place amid
configuration. Consequently it is important to evaluate the tensile stress of cement.
The information watched were noted down in Table 5.2 and demonstrated in Figure
5.2 for bacterial and controlled concrete.

The split tensile stress was determined at ages of 28, 56 and 91 days for moist cured
concrete specimens. The test consequence of the split tensile stress are demonstrated
that all in all, a wide range of concrete specimens showed proceeded with expansion
in tensile stress with advancement of curing ages.

25
From diagrams it is watched that the tensile stress of bacterial concrete increments at
all periods of curing contrasted and the controlled concrete.

5.3 FLEXURAL STRENGTH

It is seen that strength of concrete in compression and tension in both direction (i.e.
direct tension and flexural tension) are nearly related, however the relationship is not
of direct proportionality. The proportion of two strengths relies on upon general level
of strength of cement. At the end of the day, for higher compressive strength of
concrete shows higher rigidity, yet the rate of increment of elasticity is expanding
request. The utilization of microbes expands the tensile strength of concrete over the
controlled concrete.

The data are given in Table 5.3 and compared in Figure 5.3 for bacterial and
controlled concrete.

5.4 WATER ABSORPTION

Water absorption is an important factor when it comes to the strength of

concrete. Lower water absorption means better concrete. In our experiment we
observed a reduction in water absorption on use of bacteria. The data collected are
recorded in Table 5.4 and are compared in Figure 5.4.

26
 .TABLE 5.1: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULT

Grade Age Controlled Concrete Bacterial Concrete

of in Test Details
S1 S2 S3 average S1 S2 S3 average
concrete Days
Weight of
8.42 8.47 8.70 8.53 8.57 8.71 8.87 8.72
cubes in kg
Max.
Compressive 777.9 720.8 709.5 736.06 1085.7 953.3 954.6 997.8
load in KN
28 Max.
Compressive 34.57 31.53 32.71
32.03 48.25 42.36 42.42 44.34
stress in
MPa
Weight of 8.50 8.55
8.39 8.42 8.53 8.45 8.67 8.57
cubes in kg
Max.
Compressive 801 749 834.7 749.9 994.1 973.7 1044.3 1004.0
load in KN
1:1.5:3 56
Max.
Compressive 33.28 37.09 35.32 46.41 44.62
35.60 44.18 43.27
stress in
MPa
Weight of
8.43 8.38 8.46 8.42 8.47 8.82 8.77 8.68
cubes in kg
Max.
Compressive 808.9 819 817.2 815 926.7 899.1 1096 973.9
91
load in KN
Max.
Compressive
35.95 36.4 36.32 36.22 41.18 39.96 48.70 43.28
stress in
MPa

27
 50
45
Compressive stress (MPa) 40
35
30
controlled concrete
25
20 bacterial concrete
15
10
5
0
28 days 56 days 91 days
Age of concrete (days)

Figure 5.1: Comparison of compressive strength between controlled and

bacterial concrete

TABLE 5.2: SPLITTING TENSILE STRENGTH TEST RESULT

Age Controlled Concrete Bacterial Concrete

Grade of
in Test Details
concrete
days S1 S2 S3 Average S1 S2 S3 Average

Maximum
190 210 190 196.67 230 320 230 260
Load in KN
28 Tensile stress
2.68 2.97 2.68 2.76 3.25 4.52 3.25 3.67
in MPa

Maximum
205 180 195 193.33 280 240 280 266.67
Load in KN
56
1:1.5:3 Tensile stress
2.90 2.55 2.76 2.74 3.96 3.40 3.96 3.77
in MPa

Maximum
230 240 230 233.33 280 290 280 283.33
Load in KN
91
Tensile stress
3.25 3.39 3.25 3.29 3.96 4.11 3.96 4.00
in MPa

28
 4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 controlled concrete
2 bacterial concrete
1.5
1
0.5
0
28 days 56 days 91 days

Figure 5.2: Comparison of splitting tensile strength between controlled and

bacterial concrete

TABLE 5. 3: FLEXURAL STRENGTH TEST RESULT

Grade Age Controlled Concrete Bacterial Concrete

of in Test Details
concrete days S1 S2 S3 Average S1 S2 S3 Average
Maximum
Load 20 21 20 20.33 22.5 20 25 22.5
(KN)
28 Flexural
strength 10 10.5 10 10.16 11.25 10 12.5 11.25
(MPa)
Maximum
21.5 21 24 22.16 25 24.5 24.5 24.66
Load (KN)
1:1.5:3
56 Flexural
strength 10.64 10.08 12 10.90 12.5 12.25 12.25 12.33
(MPa)
Maximum
Load 19.5 24.5 24 22.68 29 20 27.5 25.5
(KN)
91
Flexural
strength 9.75 12.25 12 11.33 14.5 10 13.75 12.75
(MPa)

29
 14

Flexural strength (MPa)

12
10
8 controlled concrete
6 bacterial concrete
4
2
0
28 days 56 days 91 days
Age of concrete (days)

Figure 5.3: Comparison of flexural strength between controlled and bacterial

concrete
TABLE 5.4: WATER ABSORPTION TEST RESULT
Grade Age Controlled Concrete Bacterial Concrete
Test
of in
Details S1 S2 S3 average S1 S2 S3 average
concrete Days
Wet weight
of cubes in 8.57 8.61 8.84 8.67 8.69 8.82 8.99 8.83
kg
Dry weight
of cubes in 8.421 8.47 8.70 8.53 8.57 8.71 8.87 8.71
28 kg
Water
absorption
1.76 1.64 1.63 1.67 1.35 1.27 1.34 1.32
in %
Wet weight
of cubes in 8.50 8.57 8.56 8.58 8.75 8.60 8.65 8.67
kg
Dry weight
1:1.5:3 of cubes in 8.39 8.42 8.53 8.44 8.66 8.50 8.55 8.57
56 kg
Water
absorption
1.37 1.76 1.50 1.54 1.03 1.18 1.22 1.14
in %
Wet weight
of cubes in 8.59 8.59 8.62 8.60 8.62 8.96 8.93 8.84
kg
Dry weight
91 of cubes in 8.43 8.38 8.46 8.42 8.47 8.82 8.77 8.68
kg
Water
absorption 1.91 1.96 1.87 1.91 1.78 1.54 1.70 1.67
in %

30
 2.5

Water absorption (%)

2

1.5 controlled concrete

1 bacterial concrete

0.5

0
28 days 56 days 91 days
Age of concrete (days)

Figure 5.4: Comparison of water absorption between controlled and bacterial

concrete.

31
 6. CONCLUSION

The advancement of bacterial concrete will give the premise to an option and
astounding concrete that is naturally sheltered and eventually prompt improvement in
the sturdiness of building materials. This new innovation can give approaches to
strong streets, high quality structures with all the more bearing limit, durable stream
banks and numerous more. Accordingly, bacterial concrete can be used in different
development territories to enhance the execution of structure and lead us to new era of
development.

Based on the investigation following conclusions can be made:

1. The water absorbing capacity of bacterial concrete at 28 days was 20.95% less
than that of controlled cement. This is on account of the statement of a layer of
calcium carbonate precious stones at first glance brought about a decline of the
penetration properties and can possibly enhance the resistance of concrete towards
debasement process. At 56 days we watch it further got diminished to 25.97%. At
91 days the water absorbing capacity of bacterial concrete was 12.56% less than
that of controlled cement.
2. The compressive strength of bacterial concrete at 28, 56 and 91 days demonstrated
35.55%, 26.33% and 19.49% expansion than controlled cement individually.
Tensile stress of bacterial concrete was 32.97%, 37.93% and 21.52% separately,
more than that of controlled concrete. The flexural strength of bacterial concrete at
28, 56 and 91 days demonstrated 10.72%, 13.51% and 12.53% expansion than
controlled cement separately The increment in compressive strength and tensile
stress is mostly because of the solidification of the pores inside the concrete with
Microbiologically Induced Calcium Carbonate Precipitation.
3. Microscopic organisms Pseudomonas Aeruginosa was utilized for this study. The
kind of bacterial society and medium creation had a significant effect on calcium
carbonate gem morphology. The utilization of societies brought about more
purported decline in uptake of water. Utilization of microbial calcium carbonate
will help in fixing the way of entrance and enhance the life of strengthened
concrete structures.

32
4. As we used concentration of bacteria as 10 9cells/ml so we observed that bacteria
were active till 56 days but at 91 days the properties of controlled and bacterial
concrete are more or less same. It means bacteria went into the passive mode. So
for better result we need to use higher concentration of bacteria.
.

33
 7. REFERENCES

Braissant, O.; Verrecchia, E. & Aragno, M. (2002).”Is the contribution of bacteria

to terrestrial carbon budget greatly underestimated?”, Naturwissenschaften, Vol.
89, pp.366–370
.

Muynck-De, W; (2008) “Bacterial carbonate precipitation as an alternative surface

treatment for concrete”, Construction and Building materials, Volume 22, Issue 5,

May 2008, page 875-885.

Nicholson, W; & Fajardo-Cavazos, P; (2006) “ Applied and Environmental

Microbiology”, Volume 72, Issue 4, Page no. 2856-63.

Rodriguez-Navarro, C.; Rodriguez-Gallego, M.; Ben Chekroun, K. & Gonzalez-

Munoz, M.T. (2003).” Conservation of ornamental stone by Myxococcus xanthus
induced carbonate biomineralization,” Appl Env Microbiol, Vol. 69, pp. 2182–
2193.

Tiano P., Biagiotti L., Mastromei G. (1999). “Bacterial bio-mediated calcite

precipitation for monumental stones conservation” methods of evaluation. J.
Microbiol. Methods 36, 139–145.

34
35